Kodak Tri-X 400 with ID-11

[rayonline_nz]

As ID-11's PDF doesn't quote times for this film at 800 and over. I had a look at the Massive Dev Chart. It says @ 1600 13mins and @ 3200 11 minutes? Does that sound right? Both at stock. 35mm format. Or should I use the other listed suggestion of 9.5mins @ 1600.

I have some HP5+ including a bulk roll but I have 3 rolls of Tri-X with a earlier expiry date so figured I should use the latter. I also have a bottle of Rodinal that I have not opened yet. Worthy of a consideration? Overseas street style and buildings handheld at various different times of the day for a Hong Kong trip.


Cheers.

 

[markbarendt]

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/j78.pdf

D76 = ID11

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/j78.pdf

page 5

 

[howardpan]

This is a really interesting question.

Ilford's datasheet does show a recommended development time for ID 11 and Tri-X at 1600, and it is 12 minutes at stock strength at 20C.

See page 6.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427133131459.pdf

But I often heard and am willing to believe that ID 11 and D76 are equivalent. Yet, Kodak recommends only 9.5 minutes.

One possible explanation to reconcile this apparent contradiction is Kodak and Ilford targets different contrast levels for N development. Ilford targets a gamma of 0.62 and Kodak doesn't say.

I would recommend that you go with Ilford's time of 12 minutes for 1600 at 20C stock ID11.

If you want to really know for sure, you need to do a little testing of your own.

 

[markbarendt]

From Ilford's sheet

The table of development times given here gives an appropriate starting point

From Kodak's

The development times in the following tables are starting-point recommendation; for critical applications, run tests to determine the best development time. If your films are consistently too low in contrast, increase the development time slightly (10 to 15 percent); if they are too contrasty, decrease the development time slightly (10 to 15 percent).

For traditional B&W films, in a general sense, there isn't a development time that is "the right answer", "the perfect answer", or "the only answer" instead; from any outside source ( Kodak, Ilford, me), one gets "suggested times".

Suggested times are generally "plenty close enough" because you should be able to get a printable negative with most any suggestion.

The printing adjustment that is required for most of us to "fix" a film development time "error", is changing the paper grade by changing the filters in the enlarger. This contrast adjustment for the paper is a step/an adjustment that is at minimum normal, but more generally required to get good results because each scene is different, the film development is just one of the variables.

 

[Dali]

As previously said, development times given by manufacturers should be considered as starting points. There are multiple variables having an influence on the final result (I mean the print) when developing a film:

_ The time and the temperature
_ The agitation
_ The quality of water used to dilute the developer
_ The light source of enlarger

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Film manufacturers determine development times based on what thee average photographer will observe. The values assume among other things correct exposure, an accurate thermometer, proper timing and agitation.

Kodak no longer uses gamma but rather Contrast Index which is calculated using a different method than for gamma. Therefore I would expect the values for D-76 and ID-11 to be different. If you are using ID-11 then use Ilford's times. If you are using D-76 then use Kodak's times.

 

[darkroommike]

I just checked the Massive Developing chart and the times for stock D-76 and ID-11 are identical for EI1600 and EI3200. 9.5 minutes and 11 minutes. Whether the packaged D76 and ID11 are identical is problematical, the published formulas are a match, but both companies have been known to "tweak" the stuff they put in their bags.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

ID-11 and D-76 are functionally the same. The packaged version do however differ due to packaging requirements. Kodak owns various patents to permit developers to packed in a single container. Ilford has to use two to prevent interaction between the various chemicals.

 

[MattKing]

I just checked the Massive Developing chart and the times for stock D-76 and ID-11 are identical for EI1600 and EI3200. 9.5 minutes and 11 minutes. Whether the packaged D76 and ID11 are identical is problematical, the published formulas are a match, but both companies have been known to "tweak" the stuff they put in their bags.

The Massive Development chart includes both reliable (manufacturer's) recommendations and unreliable recommendations from unidentified sources. It is good if you are looking for the results of other people's experiments with exotic combinations. Otherwise, I am reluctant to recommend it to anyone.

It seems to me that Kodak's and Ilford's recommendations when it comes to push processing tend to be consistently different, with Kodak favouring less development and highlight density. A perfect example is Kodak's recommendation that T-Max 400 receive no additional development when it is exposed at an EI of 800.

As push processing is always a question of compromises, the differences may simply reflect something akin to personal preference.

 

[darkroommike]

I regard all published recommendations only as "departure points" for my own tests and don't commit any good shoots to a new film, developer, camera, etc. until I have explored the recommendations on my own.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Please carefully read page 6 on push processing Tri-X. It contains Kodak's recommendations.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf